Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mbenznl


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Cirt (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Mbenznl

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A Merc modding company written up in an awfully spammy tone. Are they notable? &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - No independent sources. --CreazySuit (talk) 08:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

But I am an independent source. I am writing my ideas. Furthermore there are numerous press articles and magazine entries. It takes a little time to weed out all of those entries.

Miroj (talk) 08:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Miroj, could you please cite a few of those press articles and magazine entries covering Mbenznl? --CreazySuit (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok let me roll up my sleeves and get to it. Just put down the mouse and step away from the delete key. Miroj (talk) 09:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lots of links, very little of WP:RS. Stifle (talk) 11:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This reads like marketing collateral, not an encyclopedia article. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have information on how to improve the article ? It is factual, realistic and part of a special interest group. Namely a great percentage of Mercedes Benz owners. It is a base of information relating one brand to another and cyberspace to real life. These are not trivial outcomes. It also relates indivuality to peronal space and property. That is an important contemporary concept.

The outcome of this article is that it ties together ideas about cyberspace and people. For anyone not familiar with the debate on this allow me to illuminate the number of ways in which people create media and not the other way around. WE can be certain that there is much more to be gained from Cyberspace in real life than purely the authority of Wikipedia, in fact, some people have already told me that it makes no difference at all and that I should stop exerting effort in this Wiki area.

What I intended this Wiki to do is to serve as a common link between several elements of online culture represented by a real person. A person who is specialised and notable in their field. Its not bounded by conceptual controversy or disaster and therefore does not rate with any great importance on the minds of immediate events in the world. This is about what people want and why they want it. How they come to attain it and who makes it possible.

I have many more Wikipedia entries to edit as I have largely given up on creating new pages. This is my second major effort and I find the experience to be controversial. I intend to add a dozen or so media references. There are still a lot of stubs around and junk pages to repair. I do however constrain myself to people I have met.

I really dont know what is adverse about links if those objects form part of the movement and meaning.

Revised and updated. More to come. Miroj (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, this reads like a magazine article about a non-notable person.  Corvus cornix  talk  23:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify. Some people are highly notable in their area of expertise. Such as horse breeding, walking long distances, stunts and feats. Some events are singular and some are a life achievement or perhaps a super-human effort. There is adequate scope to discuss this further as a means of broadening awareness rather than reflecting mass-media culture. Miroj (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Having read several articles about people in Magazines I draw no basis for similarity. What I do feel is that everyone has to kowtow here even when they present the newest and most recent findings about a topic. There is insufficient technical bandwidth here. The dependence on media content does not underscore the reliance on copyrighted information for the generation of some technical outcomes. You can not publish these matters within the framework of "popular culture" as those standards are far too low. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miroj (talk • contribs) 03:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Be certain that I am listening and aware of your comments. What I require is a definition which defines the topic more accurately rather than excluding the 770,000 hits for Mercedes Retrofit as a non-event. To date I am not adequately informed of a reason why this topic should lay down. Looking back over some past topics I can see that technical matters how a very low recognition level in the normal population. That in itself proves nothing to anyone as the same applies to common sense. Miroj (talk) 03:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, looks like a spammy marketing article. highly notable people will have numerous independant relaiable sources, why doesn't this? There is not even a reflist! Major life "achievments" belong in a diary or a blog, not an encylopedia. People who want to boast of there greatness should go down the pub. Yobmod (talk) 10:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry. You will never find me or Mbenznl in a pub. Perhaps we could find Lara Bingle in a Pub and get mentioned on her page. You must really like the idea of proving 700,000 threads wrong, that must be the overall purpose of non-peer reviewed articles. In all my years at University I never once heard of a person use Wikipedia as a valid form of text - the struggle for validity is most entertaining. The level that Wikipedia wishes to be accepted is simply not possible for the same reason that it can be contested, edited and drafted by anyone with an opinion. Amusing to say the least. Miroj (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.